Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider removing unused tags from jsdoc config #299

Open
edg2s opened this issue Jun 20, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Consider removing unused tags from jsdoc config #299

edg2s opened this issue Jun 20, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@edg2s
Copy link
Member

edg2s commented Jun 20, 2020

See also: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T138401

We have some legacy jsduck tags that are not recognised by jsdoc still available. These will be ingored by jsdoc so only exist for humans to read:

  • cfg (should be an alias of param probably, but I don't think multiple aliases are allowed?)
  • chainable
  • constructor
  • inheritable (does jsdoc assume all static props are inheritable?
  • localdoc (does jsdoc inheritdoc already show local documentation?)
  • singleton (jsduck warned when singleton's contained static methods. Replace with hideconstructor ?)
  • uses

Longer list from #597:

* @accessor
* @alternateClassName
* @aside
* @cfg
* @docauthor
* @evented
* @experimental
* @ftype
* @hide
* @img
* @inheritable
* @localdoc
* @markdown
* @mixins
* @new
* @preventable
* @ptype
* @removed
* @singleton
* @template
* @uses
* @video
* @xtype
@NovemLinguae
Copy link

I would keep @constructor. 1) It is a valid JSDoc tag (it's a synonym of @class), and 2) some folks like to use this tag even when there's already a @class tag as they like to make it really obvious which method is the constructor. Example:

image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants